Do folks think we should define these terms and try to use them
consistently?
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Normative vs. non-normative references
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:32:46 -0500
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
On Thursday 24 January 2002 11:19, Norman Walsh wrote:
> I note that the PR draft of xmldsig-core makes no distinction in the
> references section between normative and non-normative references.
>
> In the absence of the distinction, are they all normative or
> non-normative?
Hello Norman,
I remember once asking if there was a normative definition of normative.
(This certainly came up in questions of dependencies between
specifications.) Regardless, never saw anything in writing and a convention
for the W3C has yet to appear [1] though some WGs use the distinction.
However, I've found the context of the reference to be more useful than
this distinction in a bibliography and most of our references are normative
(in that the import meaning/protocol/procedure necessary for xmldsig
conformance). Quickly eyeballing them I'd say everything is normative
except for:
Informative: read for interesting context/background
[ABA,RDF,SOAP,XHTML1.0,XLink,XML-Japanese]
Important: I expect you should read if you're going to be capable of
implementing the spec but no meaning is imported.
[DOM,SAX,LDAP-DN]
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References
--
Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/